Discovery of two types of neutron stars points to two different classes of supernovae

Nov 09, 2011
This is a supernova star-field. Credit: Hubble Heritage Team (AURA/ STScI/ NASA)

Astronomers at the universities of Southampton and Oxford have found evidence that neutron stars, which are produced when massive stars explode as supernovae, actually come in two distinct varieties. Their finding also suggests that each variety is produced by a different kind of supernova event.

Neutron stars are the last stage in the evolution of many . They represent the most extreme form of matter: the mass of a single neutron star exceeds that of the entire sun, but squeezed into a ball whose diameter is smaller than that of London.

In a paper which will be published this week in Nature, Professors Christian Knigge and Malcolm Coe from the University of Southampton worked with Philipp Podsiadlowski of Oxford University to reveal how they have discovered two distinct populations of that appear to have formed via two different supernova channels.

"Theoreticians have speculated before about the possible existence of different types of neutron stars, but there has never been any clear observational evidence that there is really more than one type," said Professor Coe.

The astronomers analysed data on a large sample of high-mass X-ray binaries, which are double star systems in which a fast-spinning neutron star orbits a massive young companion. The neutron star in these systems also periodically siphons off material from its partner. During such phases, the neutron star becomes an X-ray pulsar: its brightness increases tremendously, but the resulting X-ray radiation is pulsed on the neutron star spin period. Such systems are very useful, because by timing their pulses, astronomers can accurately measure the neutron star spin periods.

The astronomers detected two distinct groupings in a large set of spin periods measured in this way, with one group of neutron stars typically spinning once every 10 seconds, and the other once every 5 minutes. This finding has led them to conclude that the two distinct neutron star populations formed via two different supernova channels.

"These findings take us back to the most fundamental processes of stellar evolution and lead us to question how actually work," Professor Knigge added. "This opens up numerous new research areas, both on the observational and theoretical fronts."

Explore further: 'Blockbuster' science images

More information: 'Two Populations of X-ray Pulsars Produced by Two Types of Supernovae' Nature (2011).

Related Stories

Probing the origins of extreme neutron stars

May 31, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Neutron stars are the unimaginably dense corpses of what were once much more massive stars that died while being ripped apart in a supernova explosion. Their average density is typically more than one billion ...

Space image: Carina Nebula: 14,000+ Stars

Oct 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Carina Nebula is a star-forming region in the Sagittarius-Carina arm of the Milky Way that is 7,500 light years from Earth and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory has detected more than 14,000 ...

Astronomers discover fastest-spinning pulsar

Jan 12, 2006

A team of astronomers led by McGill University graduate student Jason Hessels has discovered the fastest-spinning neutron star, or pulsar, ever found. The 20-mile-diameter superdense pulsar, which at 716 revolutions ...

Neutron Star Swaps Lead to Short Gamma-Ray Bursts

Feb 02, 2006

Gamma-ray bursts are the most powerful explosions in the universe, emitting huge amounts of high-energy radiation. For decades their origin was a mystery. Scientists now believe they understand the processes ...

Recommended for you

'Blockbuster' science images

Nov 21, 2014

At this point, the blockbuster movie Interstellar has created such a stir that one would almost have to be inside a black hole not to know about it. And while the science fiction thriller may have taken some ...

Estimating the magnetic field of an exoplanet

Nov 20, 2014

Scientists developed a new method which allows to estimate the magnetic field of a distant exoplanet, i.e., a planet, which is located outside the Solar system and orbits a different star. Moreover, they ...

It's filamentary: How galaxies evolve in the cosmic web

Nov 20, 2014

How do galaxies like our Milky Way form, and just how do they evolve? Are galaxies affected by their surrounding environment? An international team of researchers, led by astronomers at the University of ...

User comments : 35

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TimESimmons
1 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2011
But here's the cause of those multiple rings:-
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
Tim, your site makes no mention of their being "two types of neutron stars", as is discussed in this article. The only mention of a neutron star is PSR 2224 65, a lone neutron star with an unusual pulsar wind nebula.

As I explained on another recent thread, the outer rings are due to flash photoionization of previously expelled materiel from the progenitor star. The inner ring is both illuminated by this flash and the physical interaction with the debris expelled by SN 1987A.

There are several examples of Luminous Blue Variables[LBVs] (like the precursor to SN 1987A) expelling shells of matter in the events leading up to their detonation (q.v. Sher 25, Eta Car, P Cyg for examples).

In short, there's no need to invoke "anti-gravity matter" to explain the features observed in SN 1987A.

You might want to check out a recent paper looking at the similarities between Sher 25 & SN1987A: http://arxiv.org/...38v1.pdf

Food for thought. :^)
omatumr
1 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2011
Discovery of two types of neutron stars?


Before starting to catalogue different types of neutron stars, I recommend that the authors study nuclear rest mass data [1] or read papers by those who have [2-6] so that they understand the different types of interactions between nucleons:

1. "Nuclear Rest Mass Data"

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

2. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", JFE 19, 93-98 (2001)

www.omatumr.com/a...tnuc.pdf

3. "Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", JRAN 252, 3-7 (2002)

www.springerlink....ak3lyrc/

4. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", JFE 20, 197-201 (2002)

www.springerlink....6685079/

5. "The standard solar model versus experimental observations", IOP Proceedings, 307-316 (2003)

www.omatumr.com/a...2002.pdf

6. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

O. Manuel
omatumr
1 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2011
there's no need to invoke "anti-gravity matter" to explain the features observed in SN 1987A.


Neutron repulsion is the force that competes with gravity to maintain our dynamic universe.

"Is the Universe Expanding?", The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2011
Well there is a cause of posts like this.

http://en.wikiped...r_effect

According to the AGM Theory most of deep space

contains a thin atmosphere of anti-gravity matter
Is there any evidence or is the usual handwaving?

Gravitational Evidence for Dark Matter is also Evidence for Anti-Gravity Matter.
Not there.

Prediction:- A particle will be discovered to have positive mass and negative weight.
So then no evidence.

Spiral galaxies are common in the universe. However simulations of gravitationally bound matter do not produce core-and-disc shapes or spirals.
No. Keep up.

http://blogs.disc...to-date/

So you need to update your site to what has been falsified.

Sure is a lot of handwaving on you site. No math. Just special waves of the hand for each claim. No actual evidence, just magical passes.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (14) Nov 09, 2011
Oliver you have made it quite clear that Neutron Repulsion makes Black Holes impossible. With that sort of repulsion going on it also makes planets, stars, and galaxies impossible. And it really should show in the lab except that there would be no labs if you were correct.

Please explain this profound problem in Neutron Repulsion. None of your papers cover this, so another repost of old papers is just evasion.

You have been evading this for a considerable length of time. Much like you evade questions about a rigid iron mantle when the Sun is to hot for iron to be anything except a gas and usually a plasm as can be seen in those running difference images you like. Those are plasma not solids as the images were taken of ionized iron. Could you explain how multiply ionized iron at hundreds of thousands K could be rigid?

Ethelred
yyz
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2011
"Neutron repulsion is the force that competes with gravity to maintain our dynamic universe."

There's no need to introduced hypothesized "experimentally validated" effects to explain the spectroscopically observed photoionization of material expelled by the SN precursor either. Just another ad hoc explanation explained adequately by known physics, no handwaving required. Occam's razor, and all.

Just to turn the tables, oliver, how many hours do you spend critically examining the plethora of work now being published in the burgeoning field of neutron star astrophysics? How many neutron star specialists do you consult with on a regular basis?

Given your chemistry degree dating from the '70's, do you really feel confident referring to the same published papers (some quite dated) in your professional discourse on neutron star science, with NO point-by-point detailed critique of the mountain of published work that refutes your cherished beliefs?

(con't)
yyz
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2011
(Con't)

Oliver, how about for a change, you answer your critics on a point-by-point basis, instead of referring us to the same tired published work of yours, which answers nothing of our specific requests. Just stop telling all those who inquire about your "notion" to just read what you have already published. This behaviour is evasion and a non-answer.

Where is the confirmatory evidence for your notions from others? Even your former students don't support you. That is most telling.
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2011
Awesome! Discoveries like this are what keep me so into science, neutron stars being one of my favorite topics. Cant wait to see what we learn next.
Oliver-Thats a bunch of horseshit, give it a rest already or im going to go back to revealing the truth about you to everyone, i can only take so much of your nonsense before i cant stop the urge to show the truth about you.
TimESimmons
1 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2011
Ethelred that looks very much like a 2 dimensional simulation. In 3D gravitationally bound matter behaves like this - http://vimeo.com/29406342.

The process that produces the double rings is here - http://www.presto...vaR.htm.

Tim

rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2011
What are you seeing around supernova is an analogy of tiny galaxy, just in different momentum space. The protoplanetar ring corresponds the galaxy, the cones are black hole jets, just with wider angle. This analogy just illustrates, the black holes don't conceptually differ from neutron stars, just in scale. They were formed with similar crunch, like the supernovae itself. Analogously, the jets of neutron star are exaggerated case of gravitational brightening, which we can observe at poles of giant fast rotating stars. This analogy goes even further - for example, from some indicia follows, the Sun is emanating two streams of neutrinos at poles, thus behaving like weak neutrino pulsar with invisible jets.
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2011
Even our Milky Way may not be so quiet - the activity of central black hole faded already before many years, but it's still able to emanate bursts of neutrinos and X-rays through its poles.

http://nanopatent...sly.html

By LaViolette theory these bursts are periodic and they can be responsible for global warming periods. The antineutrinos released with bursts are accelerating the decay of radioactive elements in the oceans and Earth mantle, thus heating the oceans from the bottom.
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
"The process that produces the double rings is here - http://www.presto...vaR.htm."

Observations of the kinematics and physical conditions of the inner ring (temp, density, turbulence) are at odds with your model (see this 2010 IFS study of the inner ring of SN 1987A: http://www.eso.or...1032.pdf for details).

Also, the first two "Example Supernova Remnants" on that page, M 57 and IC 4406, are examples of planetary nebulae, the final stages of stars not massive enough to go supernova. The captions accompanying these illustrations are also contrary to numerous studies of these objects.

One last note; your linked page does not describe the *three* rings seen in SN 1987A and does not account for the observed time delay between the SN and the appearance of said rings, nor their geometry. You've got some 'splaining to do Tim, to account for all of these observed features.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2011
Ethelred that looks very much like a 2 dimensional simulation.
Wishful thinking and a lack of reading.

But Eris bulge-to-disk ratio, stellar content, and other features fall in line with observations of the Milky Way.
Its takes a 3D sim to deal with the bulge. I can't see any sign of the sim being 3D only in the paper.

http://arxiv.org/...30v2.pdf

In 3D gravitationally bound matter behaves like this -
In the older simulation. This was a NEW sim. Quite putting PERIODS at the end of your links. That is what is breaking them. Links should be on there own line, if you must do it the daring way you need to have a SPACE after the link.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2011
I find it interesting that you feel others must have sims but you just wave your hands and claim you have the answer the problem in the sims. Only you don't test your claims. I understand that a test on a massive multiprocessor system that could handle a massive 3D model like the one I linked to would be rather difficult. Still you were the one claiming they couldn't do it and claim you have the answer. They could and you have nothing your claim of having an answer except your say so.

Which is why I posted that Wiki link. You don't even have the most basic model and you claim the others fail. Even after being shown the newest model you try to claim it be other than what it was.

Ethelred
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
"...the activity of central black hole faded already before many years, but it's still able to emanate bursts of neutrinos and X-rays through its poles."

"By LaViolette theory these bursts are periodic and they can be responsible for global warming periods. The antineutrinos released with bursts are accelerating the decay of radioactive elements in the oceans and Earth mantle, thus heating the oceans from the bottom."

So where are your refs showing neutrinos (or antineutrinos) have been detected from Sag A*? From someone other than LaViolette.

You made the claim. Where are the *observations*?
rawa1
1 / 5 (8) Nov 10, 2011
You made the claim. Where are the *observations*?
We are experiencing global warming across whole solar system, increased geovolcanic activity, fluctuations of solar activity and geomagnetic field, increased frequency of asteroids impacts at Jupiter and Sun, changes in speed of light or gravitational constant, iridium meter prototype dilatation and/or lost of mass of kilogram prototype...
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
Zephir, your response is irrelevant to my question directed at Tim. Both Tim and LaViolette state that neutrinos (or antineutrinos, whatever) are being emitted from the SMBH Sag A*. WHERE ARE THE *OBSERVATIONS* THAT SUPPORT SUCH CLAIMS (sorry for shouting, but these people are hopelessly deluded). Stop evading my question and trying to change the subject.

IOW, put up or shut up!
jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
Oliver Manuel's recent efforts to plaster Physorg.com and other public news sites with his theories and personal URLs are a bit puzzling, as scientists have a variety of publications available to communicate directly to each other in. My best guess is that he is desperately trying to prop up his legacy in light of his arrest in his university office on 7 charges of rape and sodomy based on allegations by 4 of his own children. The charges have been reduced to one count of felony attempted sodomy, not necessarily because of his innocence, but because of the statute of limitations. One can only guess how the recent charges and decades of family strife have affected his ability to reason rationally and to remain objective while defending his unpopular theories.

http://www.homefa...uel.html

http://mominer.ms...hildren/

TimESimmons
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2011
you don't even have the most basic model

Ethelred I think I do have the most basic model. See my Galaxy Simulations page. All done on a pc.
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
TimESimmons
1 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2011
And xyz why do you state that "Observations of the kinematics and physical conditions of the inner ring (temp, density, turbulence) are at odds with your model"? I haven't made any statement about those.

Tim
yyz
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
"xyz why do you state that "Observations of the kinematics and physical conditions of the inner ring (temp, density, turbulence) are at odds with your model"? I haven't made any statement about those."

Exactly my point. Your model is incapable of matching the observed parameters of the SN, unlike many detailed, predictive models already in existence. So why choose your inaccurate, wholly qualitative model when attempting to interpret what is observed in SN 1987A, over quantitative models that can produce the observed quantities of the system? Your AGM interpretation has nothing going for it except your say so (and no one else as far as I can tell).
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
WHERE ARE THE *OBSERVATIONS* THAT SUPPORT SUCH CLAIMS
I just told you.. We are experiencing global warming across whole solar system, increased geovolcanic activity, fluctuations of solar activity and geomagnetic field, increased frequency of asteroids impacts at Jupiter and Sun, changes in speed of light or gravitational constant, iridium meter prototype dilatation and/or lost of mass of kilogram prototype...

What all these phenomena have in common? Well, just the increased density of (anti)neutrinos inside of solar system. The low energy neutrinos are nearly indistinguishable from virtual particles in vacuum. Literally speaking, they're doing it more dense into account of observable matter.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
If you would measure the speed of light with using of laser clock based on the speed of light in vacuum and use the meter prototype, based on the speed of light in vacuum, then it's evident, you cannot detect any difference. But if you will use the meter prototype made of iridium, then this material will swell in more dense vacuum like raisin grain in pudding.

http://www.physor...s64.html

And you'll observe the gradual dilatation of iridium meter prototype, when you will compare it with laser prototype. Apparently, for people dealing with math rigor and formal unit system based on invariance of light speed and another physical constants it's literally impossible to realize or understand this trivial connections. Such things are going over their heads.
yyz
5 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2011
Zephir, do you have a problem with comprehension? Can you read plain English?

Again, Tim Simmons and Tuxford(LaViolette) have stated that neutrinos (or antineutrinos) have been observed coming from the SMBH Sag A*. Got it?

Now, WHERE ARE THE OBSERVATIONS THAT SUPPORT THAT CLAIM? I really don't care and didn't ask about all that nonsense you listed in your posts. My question is, specifically, where are the neutrino observations claimed for Sag A*?

I was asking this question of them since they brought up that specific point when you chimed in with your irrelevant comments. So far, they have not backed up their claims. Please try to keep up with the conversation and stop trying to change the subject (neutrinos from Sag A*!). Deal?
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
WHERE ARE THE OBSERVATIONS THAT SUPPORT THAT CLAIM

Do you remember this?
http://www.wired....ilky-way

http://science.na...voyager/
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2011
Very nice links but another evasion. The first has nothing to do with Sagittarius A* and the second doesn't mention neutrinos.

So I too am going to ask:

Do you have reading problem? Your English is much improved but it isn't your native language so that could be the problem BUT there is that utter lack of the word NEUTRINO on both links.

A CONTROL F would show you that if you are having problems with the language.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
The first has nothing to do with Sagittarius A*
I see.. Do you know about some better black hole at the center of galaxy?

http://www.wired....nasa.jpg

there is that utter lack of the word NEUTRINO on both links
This is just an observational support, which yyz wanted. It's not definite proof of the neutrino source. These neutrinos can come from galactic plane or from Oort cloud, where they surround some massive body, which is visiting solar system just sparingly. There are many other dark matter sources in our galaxy. These hypothesis are still opened, but they're weaker, than the La Violette hypothesis.
TimESimmons
1 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2011
yyz just for the record I never made any statement about neutrinos and Sagittarius A*

http://www.presto...ndex.htm

Tim
yyz
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2011
"yyz just for the record I never made any statement about neutrinos and Sagittarius A*"

Looking back over the posts, I made a mistake. My apologies for the misattribution Tim.

But I'm still curious about the long-recognized planetary nebulae M 57 and IC 4406, which on your site you call "supernova remnants". Do you believe all planetary nebula are supernovae remnants? To what do you attribute the difference in velocities seen between SN and PNe?

What about the substantial lack of supernova-produced elements such as Ti-44, Ni-56 and Fe observed in young PNe and protoplanetary nebulae?
TimESimmons
1 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2011
xyz sorry I don't know the answer. I believe the two example objects on my website are the remanants of exploding stars.

Ethelred I believe I have answered your objection relating the the ERIS simulation at:-
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2011
Ethelred I believe I have answered your objection relating the the ERIS simulation at:-
No. Well you may believe it but that isn't correct. The ERIS sim is not 2D not is it a mere few hundred particles.

Ethelred
TimESimmons
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2011
Ethelred See the revised first evidence statement at http://www.presto...ndex.htm (top of the Evidence page). The ERIS simulation uses a large and unrealistic gravitational softening distance.

Tim
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2011
Would you care to give me a clue as to just what you are referring to? And it would help if you used links to the correct page as well. Like this:

http://www.presto...ence.htm

Gravitational Evidence for Dark Matter is also Evidence for Anti-Gravity Matter.

According to the AGM Theory these gravitational effects are caused by a local reduction in the density of anti-gravity matter, not by the presence of dark matter. Set out below is further evidence for anti-gravity matter. Much of it is difficult to explain using theories that depend on gravitationally attractive dark matter. (The Maths behind the behaviour of anti-gravity matter is explored in Investigation > Basic Maths.)
I don't see anything covering the new sim.

I do see the same image from an older sim not the one in this article.

Ethelred

TimESimmons
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2011

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.